Bug#831174: gcc-avr: diff for NMU version 1:4.9.2+Atmel3.5.0-1.1

2016-09-26 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2016-09-25 20:10:47, Hakan Ardo wrote: > I'm releaseing my version now, which I suppose cancels the NMU? Thanks, great. Yes, this will cause the NMU to be rejected. Cheers > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Sebastian Ramacher > wrote: > > > On 2016-09-25 10:40:34, Hakan Ardo wrote: > > > T

Bug#831174: gcc-avr: diff for NMU version 1:4.9.2+Atmel3.5.0-1.1

2016-09-25 Thread Hakan Ardo
I'm releaseing my version now, which I suppose cancels the NMU? On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2016-09-25 10:40:34, Hakan Ardo wrote: > > Thanx. I've got a version on the way that instead applies this upstream > fix > > for gcc 6 compatibility: > > > > https://g

Bug#831174: gcc-avr: diff for NMU version 1:4.9.2+Atmel3.5.0-1.1

2016-09-25 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2016-09-25 10:40:34, Hakan Ardo wrote: > Thanx. I've got a version on the way that instead applies this upstream fix > for gcc 6 compatibility: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=ec1cc0263f156f70693a62cf17b254a0029f4852 > > I would prefer to go with thatone unless you have s

Bug#831174: gcc-avr: diff for NMU version 1:4.9.2+Atmel3.5.0-1.1

2016-09-25 Thread Hakan Ardo
Thanx. I've got a version on the way that instead applies this upstream fix for gcc 6 compatibility: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=ec1cc0263f156f70693a62cf17b254a0029f4852 I would prefer to go with thatone unless you have strong reasons for your approach? On Sat, Sep 24, 2016

Bug#831174: gcc-avr: diff for NMU version 1:4.9.2+Atmel3.5.0-1.1

2016-09-24 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
Control: tags 831174 + patch Control: tags 831174 + pending Dear maintainer, I've prepared an NMU for gcc-avr (versioned as 1:4.9.2+Atmel3.5.0-1.1) and uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. Regards. -- Sebastian Ramacher diff -u gcc-avr-4.9.2+Atmel3